Oh it's so wonderful to see a comic, its author, its readership, and its forum all mature in such a bloody entertaining way_________________"Time is life, and life resides in the human heart." - Michael Ende

Ok, and we're done. Seriously, taking Sinfest off my favorites list. Tat wants to make fun of the legit offense guys take to being the "bad guy" all of the time, that's his business. His comic, his content, his feminazi brainwashed perspective. I can respect that. Now I'm going to go respect that, somewhere else, reading other webcomics that do not intentionally abuse the fans.

Why make a post? Why not just unfavorite and leave? Why "make a scene?" How else is Tatsuya Ishida gonna know how a portion of his readers feel unless someone tells him. I don't pretend I'm leading some great big contingent of male readers who are gonna storm off and leave him with no audience. Not at all.

Who wants to bet that KDX will continue reading the comic without posting?

Also, Tat might respond to a decrease in forum activity much more than someone whining about women wanting to be treated as humans.

Miss Magenta wrote:

i have noticed plenty of people who have gotten into it because of the feminism.

Feminism was the entire reason I gave the comic another chance. I honestly found early Sinfest extremely boring.

and I'm done supporting an artist who makes fun of what is a serious problem in society

I wanna see some flippin' receipts, budro; just what "supporting" have you done for an artist who makes a point of being accountable to no-one and who backs it up by never asking for donations?

Oh, wait, you can't show me any 'cuz you've left in puff of butt-hurt drama-queening._________________I am only a somewhat arbitrary sequence of raised and lowered voltages to which your mind insists upon assigning meaning

This is one of my sore-points with the rhetoric. Think about the language you're using. Why is it OK when you're going after critics of feminism to say they've been "butt-hurt" and to call them "dude-bro"? The first term would have to allude to some kind of anal (probably homosexual) rape. What is the point of saying this? It's got to be a kind of emasculation -- it is in the neighborhood of calling these people "gay". Aside from being nasty in the just the same way that making fun of people by calling them "gay" is nasty, this also seems to rely on the sort of assumptions about proper masculine behavior that are part and parcel of the assumptions about proper feminine behavior feminism criticizes.

You might try to defend this by saying you're trying to tear down this sort of culture by using it's own standards against it -- but from my perspective, it's hard to say whether this is more going to tear down that culture or perpetuate it.

It's the same thing with calling people "dude" or "dudebro". It's the equivalent (albeit an ironic one) of calling a woman "chick". So one of the things I meant when I said, in my initial rant, that I dislike the rhetorical strategies of some feminists, is that I feel it's very much a quid pro quo sort of thing. "You people do this sort of thing to us all the time, so we're going to point it right back at you and see how you like it." I question whether this is the proper strategy to use in a social justice movement. It seems like there's a "returning harm for harm" undercurrent here, which is something I very strongly object to.

So the way I see it, calling people "dude" and calling people "chick" are on a par, along with implying that people are gay or else have been anally raped, and all of these are a part of a culture we want to get rid of. In short, as the cliche goes, if you use your enemyies' weapons against them, you become the very people you're fighting against.

This is one of my sore-points with the rhetoric. Think about the language you're using. Why is it OK when you're going after critics of feminism to say they've been "butt-hurt" and to call them "dude-bro"? The first term would have to allude to some kind of anal (probably homosexual) rape. What is the point of saying this? It's got to be a kind of emasculation -- it is in the neighborhood of calling these people "gay". Aside from being nasty in the just the same way that making fun of people by calling them "gay" is nasty, this also seems to rely on the sort of assumptions about proper masculine behavior that are part and parcel of the assumptions about proper feminine behavior feminism criticizes.

You might try to defend this by saying you're trying to tear down this sort of culture by using it's own standards against it -- but from my perspective, it's hard to say whether this is more going to tear down that culture or perpetuate it.

It's the same thing with calling people "dude" or "dudebro". It's the equivalent (albeit an ironic one) of calling a woman "chick". So one of the things I meant when I said, in my initial rant, that I dislike the rhetorical strategies of some feminists, is that I feel it's very much a quid pro quo sort of thing. "You people do this sort of thing to us all the time, so we're going to point it right back at you and see how you like it." I question whether this is the proper strategy to use in a social justice movement. It seems like there's a "returning harm for harm" undercurrent here, which is something I very strongly object to.

So the way I see it, calling people "dude" and calling people "chick" are on a par, along with implying that people are gay or else have been anally raped, and all of these are a part of a culture we want to get rid of. In short, as the cliche goes, if you use your enemyies' weapons against them, you become the very people you're fighting against.